Phoenix will have sole control over sales of NSR intended for use in liquidity operations. This includes all NSR held by FLOT and any other agent in control of shareholder NSR authorized for use in liquidity operations. All transactions will be reported as detailed in the transparency section. However, advance notice will generally not be given as that would put us at a disadvantage versus NSR buyers.

@Phoenix, if this passes, is my understanding that FLOT will continue to hold the NSR in multisig? You will just have the power to direct them what to do with it? In other words, you will not be holding these NSR yourself, correct? Because that would be unacceptable for them to be held by one person.

@Phoenix, it needs to be made clear in your motion that you don’t have the power to hold the reserve or NuShares for sale by yourself, meaning you cannot order FLOT to send them solely to yourself for any reason. They need to be kept under multisig control with FLOT. You can give FLOT orders on how to proceed with sales or liquidity operations using the reserve, but you cannot hold either yourself without multisig protecting the funds from theft. Can you please add something like this into the grant?

@Phoenix, if this passes, is my understanding that FLOT will continue to hold the NSR in multisig? You will just have the power to direct them what to do with it? In other words, you will not be holding these NSR yourself, correct? Because that would be unacceptable for them to be held by one person.

Yes, FLOT will continue to hold the bulk of the NSR in multisig. I plan to ask for 5 or 10 million NSR from FLOT to begin with, to be split in single key addresses controlled by myself and one other person (it won’t be a secret who this is, but the person hasn’t been selected yet, but I will say I am planning on having a conversation with @jooize about filling this role). This NSR will be sold, likely through auction and Poloniex.

Yes, FLOT will continue to hold the bulk of the NSR in multisig. I plan to ask for 5 or 10 million NSR from FLOT to begin with, to be split in single key addresses controlled by myself and one other person (it won’t be a secret who this is, but the person hasn’t been selected yet, but I will say I am planning on having a conversation with @jooize about filling this role). This NSR will be sold, likely through auction and Poloniex.

That’s great. Can you please put the above limitation of power that I described in your grant just so it is official and shareholders have protection?

This reminds me of some thoughts from Hayek: he claimed that a limited democracy might be better than other forms of limited government at protecting liberty but that an unlimited democracy was worse than other forms of unlimited government because “its government loses the power even to do what it thinks right if any group on which its majority depends thinks otherwise”.

Incompetent liquidity providers are defined as any person who has control of shareholder buy side funds (in single key addresses, multisig addresses or on exchange accounts) who increases the buy side offset above that of the sell offset or advocates doing so as a means of dealing with reduced liquidity. Dealing with reduced liquidity by reducing it further to save it for later is dysfunctional. It erodes confidence, which will only cause NuBit users to abandon our product.

That doesn’t make much sense unless you want to

be marked as incompetent

acknowledge that this behaviour (especially increasing the spread) is the only reasonable behaviour, if the funds are low on buy side

Do you plan to make the spread symmetric?
And if, what for? To prevent Jordan’s motion text from strictly applying to what you do?

Or would you be trying to match the market needs?
Finally some reason…

I’d rather see somebody more competent than you apply for such a role and hope you don’t get much support for this motion. The only good thing is the transparency promised by this motion.

Are shareholders desperate enough to elect a pseudonym fro this job that registered a few days ago?
Seriously?

It has been hashed: 07998c78c75eebeb3cee7756be32f1fa513a3a4e
---Begin Motion--- Nu needs a source of revenue to continue liquidity operations. One step can be accomplished by implementing a dynamic transaction fee based upon coin age.
We set the fee to reduce NBT by X% every year. Where X% is a variable to be determined and voted on by shareholders in a manner similar to voting on park rates.
This would generate a yearly revenue stream for Nu which would be less than X%, but greater than 0…

With the auctions underway, it is getting more important to get into actions. The actions I'm proposing are not unique and have been proposed by other in some way or the other so I'm not taking credit for them.
My proposal will certainly move some dust around the place but I believe this is a chance to get things restarted while we continue to think and start building profitable solutions. This is not a quick fix, it will take time and it will only for those in for the long haul or those seei…

OK Nu, this is my last attempt at sanity. A number of us have asked and asked. Instead of getting compromise or discussion we get motions that push us towards the same cliff.
Motion Hash: 8688c842023109881ad6a77bc8bdfe8f5c1704dc
--Begin Motion--
Nu will not utilize nu funds to perform liquidity operations - try to maintain a peg - without establishing an agreed upon (through motion) revenue model.
--End Motion--
https://daology.org/proposals/c12868855eca0d201dfb744937255d42c75ad95b
W…

Are shareholders desperate enough to elect a pseudonym fro this job that registered a few days ago?Seriously?

@Phoenix is @JordanLee. I believe I’ve read enough of his replies over the last several years to know the way he writes. Jordan would have called this person out a while ago if he was an impersonator trying to trick shareholders. I still don’t completely understand why he’s using an alternate identity. I thought he was trying to make a point about authority yesterday, but it doesn’t really matter. Voting for this grant means you’re putting Jordan Lee, the architect of Nu in charge of liquidity operations.

This 100%. It’s completely against what cryptocurrency tries to achieve, decentralization.

But even if we had the proof needed to feel confident knowing this is JL (we don’t), the fact that he is doing this and completely dodging questions about it still makes it unacceptable to vote for him.

@Phoenix, please just drop the act and start using your @JordanLee account again. I’m 99.9% sure it’s you and most other people aren’t falling for it either. You write the same. You say the same things. You give long speeches about decentralization and liquidity. You act stubborn. You dodge questions about revenue. You put threads up for voting with no chance for shareholders to help in the drafting process.

It’s you. We all know it. Whatever the reason for this is, I have no idea, but it’s only hurting your chances of getting your motion passed. Just come back out as @JordanLee so we can get things done.

Bitcoin invented the permissionless mining.
Nubits has invented the permissionless ideation and leadership.
This crisis is a tremendous opportunity to be all leaders, identify the cracks and fill them, one by one.

I don’t know if Jordan is correct or not. All I know is that if I can’t trust the architect of Nu to know what he’s talking about, then I don’t see much hope for this project succeeding anymore. We’ve had almost 2 years to come up with revenue models and nothing has been accomplished.

Jordan talks a big game. He thinks shareholders have been doing it wrong and he’s the expert on how his system is supposed to run and knows what needs to happen. I say we give him his big chance to prove whether he really knows what he’s talking about. If he succeeds, then great. If he fails, then we know for sure that he’s wrong and we can either try to find a different approach or close up shop and move on. I feel like we’ve got nothing to lose at this point, so we might as well give him his shot to prove himself. Maybe I’m right. Maybe I’m wrong. That’s just how I feel.

But we need the real @JordanLee to stand up if he wants this to have any chance of passing.

Jordan abandoned this community and this project for all we know.
The time for big mouth talk is over.
You ran out of money.
If you want to recover, you have to prepare a plan that is better than “give me control over all your NSR and all discretion and I promise…”

Let’s go for performance-related compensation! With every $0.10 that the peg is being raised and kept for 72 hours, you will receive 500k Nushares. First compensation kicks in with the peg level at $0.40.

Shareholders should demand to see competence measured in verifiable metrics. As it stands the agreement (not even a motion) promises nothing on the quality of the service. All it does is grabbing power, not only limited to liquidity operatiions, but extend to all nushares any one owns by being able to demand unlimited nushare printing.

This is an extraordinary request to Nu DAO and ot should not be granted lightly.

I am not ignoring the positive thing in the proposal – that @JordanLee appears to plan to put his own effort in day-to-day liquidity provision, which could have helped to avoid today’s situation by taking effective T5 and T6 action when the buyback pool became negative.

Shareholders should demand to see competence measured in verifiable metrics.

I agree it would be better if the grant was altered to show that payment for services can only be received if the chief hits milestones, for example every time he gets the peg to rise up $0.10 with the full reserves to cover it. The grant should be made to FLOT instead, and they should be instructed to hand out NSR payment upon completion of these milestones. This way we’re not paying for work that hasn’t been completed yet.

All it does is grabbing power, not only limited to liquidity operatiions, but extend to all nushares any one owns by being able to demand unlimited nushare printing.

He can’t demand that shareholders vote for a new grant of NSR. Shareholders don’t have to comply. If he doesn’t conserve the newly printed NSR, shareholders can simply vote to terminate him for his wastefulness. They can terminate him at any time if he does something that shareholders don’t like. Shareholders still have the ultimate power here. They’re only delegating their responsibility for liquidity operations to the architect for a temporary amount of time. They can pull that responsibility back to themselves through termination any time they want.

Let’s go for performance-related compensation! With every $0.10 that the peg is being raised and kept for 72 hours, you will receive 500k Nushares. First compensation kicks in with the peg level at $0.40.